How does recruitment work from the employers side?

[Netcurtainnelly]

A question for employers.
how does recruitment works from the employers side and what challenges do employers face.
We know alot about the jobseekwrs side?

I remember interviewing a candidate once with our CEO via Teams. She had one of those 'Live, Laugh, Love' signs behind her on the wall.

She was a very unsuitable candidate and during the interview came across very poorly, she was borderline aggressive with very poor social interaction skills. It was a obvious no from the start but we went through the motions. Afterwards the CEO stated why she was a definite No and then said 'I'm not hiring anyone who needs to write instructions on how to be a human being on their wall. What will she write next 'Eat, Shit, Sleep' ?!' it had been a very tense interview but I almost spat my coffee out laughing at that one!

Thanks @Megifer ! Is it more common for recruiters to use the AI Auto Shortlist than not?

Also, does a career break put a candidate (with decades of relevant experience) at the bottom of the pile?

Not necessarily, but within reason I'd want to know why they had a career break. It would need to be compelling reason because I'd be concerned about how they've maintained their skills set during that time and whether they would create a training headache or workplace culture adjustment issue.

It would raise a flag that I'd need to know more about. If the candidate has a reasonable explanation then I would interview. But they wouldn't necessarily be at the top of my list unless they were a stand out at interview against other in work candidates. Sadly I'd probably negotiate their starting salary down to allow for a risk adjustment and probation period.

I would not automatically put someone at the bottom of the pile because of a career break. If it had been a long break, I would want to see some evidence of them having kept their skills up to date though.

No idea about how AI shortlists in that scenario. We don't use it for that purpose.

There's more...

Closing the review process before closing the advert is common. Quite often the recruiter will take the first, say 50 applications and shortlist, leaving the ad open for mor should they not get enough from that first batch. Unknowing applicants spend time applying and are never considered. Solution - apply on day 1 or 2 of the advert.

The overwhelming quantity of applications leads to an in house recruiter, or perhaps a 3rd party recruiter, doing the first pass without always having a perfect understanding of the role / requirement and almost always playing safe, ie not giving creative judgement to left field candidates.

Advertising before there's authority to hire. That gives the recruiter a head start in time, but sometimes the vacancy isn't approved so candidate time is wasted.

Being told you need to advertise externally even through an internal candidate is favoured just on the off chance there's someone better qualified.

We have an application form & dont accept cvs. They need to answer, in detail, the person spec with examples. Its mind blowing how many people dont follow the very clear instructions & just send in a cv or dont provide any examples for 'who is the person'.

Brief in house recruitment team who whittle down the 130 applications to a shortlist of 5 (also by interviewing them.)
Interview the 5 against a set of prepared questions designed to understand capability and suitability for the role and how they will interact with the team and our stakeholders.
Go back to in-house recruitment team unless certain we have someone we want on the team.
Take 2-3 through to a second round of interviews with other team members and HR BP with any areas to cross check or probe further.
Meet and decide.

If at any stage someone appears to not be a team player or not display cultural fit they are out - it is too hard to deal with these people once they are in role.

You have to advertise externally was my understanding. The companiesxI have worked at have always advertised any role externally as well - but just for a short time to limit applications.

Something I would watch for is ensuring your address is a commutable distance from the office. I often get people with a foreign home address applying - this concerns me as I don’t want to risk
a delay in start date because they could not find a flat (never mind any visa considerations). When interviewing for an internship we had two equally good candidates and chose the one who lived commutable from the office - didn’t want ro
have to deal with the inevitable wfh requests or requests to leave early because of traffic that the other one almost certainly would have meant.

You don't have to advertise externally unless your company policy requires that you do so.

@Megifer Thanks for the honesty and @MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack for the reply.

I am trying to get back into the world of work (Tech Finance) after a couple of years of break and I had not realised just how hard it would be to even get an interview despite 20+ years of solid experience!

I don't know whether there are just fewer jobs (see lots of contacts on my LinkedIn have the Open to Work badge), or if my career break is adversely affecting my chances or whether AI is filtering my CV altogether for whatever reason.

It's also interesting re the use of AI on CVs. I have been advised to redo my CV using the SOAR method, been told that otherwise I stand no chance of making the cut.

How long exactly was your career break? What have you done to keep your skills up during that time?

Why did you take a break ? (don't have to tell us but could help tailor advice)

I was HR director for a global tech firm and it's surprising how fast the tech world moves on in such a short space of time.

The problem I had was my employer refusing to pay a living wage and only offering zero hours contracts to the people I was trying to recruit.
They were constantly going through the same process over and over.
You'd see these hopeful faces and then the project would end a few weeks later and then nada. Not much of a job opportunity really!

Another question to those of you in the know: I recently had a final stage interview and walked out of there thinking, wow, I would rather be unemployed than work for these people. One of the interviewers was lovely, but the other one was highly unprofessional, rude, and made it seem like a really unappealing place to work if this kind of behaviour flies.

I’ve since accepted another offer at a different place and have yet to hear back from these guys (nor was I expecting a response by now) but I was wondering if it’s worth giving the HR person leading the process some professionally worded feedback? While I’m not going into detail here, there are multiple concrete things I could refer to, it went well beyond a personality clash.

My instinct is that it’s better just to smile and nod and not burn any bridges, but I’m actually quite angry that I stuck with them through several interview rounds (including taking time off work) only to be treated this way in the final one. I know I was a strong candidate, and while I’m sure others were too, surely they shouldn’t be actively discouraging anyone at that stage from ever wanting to step in the building again!?

@MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack I have been off for 2.5 years (bereavements, multiple traumatic miscarriages, house move all at the same time). It just felt to me that I would not be able to focus on my work properly, hence I took the time off. Now I wish I hadn't tbh.

I have been doing a few courses mostly focused on AI use within my role, but indecisive re shelling out several thousands on some of the longer courses because I don't know whether they will actually make a difference.

I'm going to give you my honest unvarnished take here, so please take it in that context.

What was the level of role you were applying for? Was it a senior or junior position?

If it was a senior role, then I think it would definitely be worth giving a carefully worded feedback assessment with objective facts rather than feelings. That is likely to be much more powerful in triggering meaningful reviews of their demeanour and processes than anything highly subjective and open to interpretation.

if it's a junior role then I wouldn't bother because realistically it's likely to be filed in the bin as just a disgruntled candidate. It's an employers market right now so they can afford to mess people around sadly. So I wouldn't waste your time or energy in this case and just focus on your new job.

@SamuraiSally thank you. It was a mid-level role; not junior but not quite senior either…

Again, unvarnished feedback from me here and not intended to upset or offend.

That career gap is going to be tricky to position positively in your CV. It immediately raises the concerns of resilience and mental health problems that might need to be managed long term in the workplace. That can be costly and time consuming for the employer, especially in your sector where competition is fierce and there are many applicants.

From an HR perspective that gap in your CV needs to be packaged more positively. In your shoes, I think an investment in training may be your solution here. It could be positioned positively to explain the gap and give you a current skills set qualification that you could present alongside your experience.

99/100 applicants are unsuitable for the post

no relevant experience whatsoever

This ^

This is why I find it irritating when people say that they’ve applied for 100s of jobs within the space of a few months. These are the idiots applying for stuff they are completely unsuitable for.

As a hiring manager, 90% of applications I don't consider to be candidates at all, just spam from people with no right to work in the UK and no relevant skills or experience.

Of the actual candidates, there will always be a male recent graduate with irrelevant experience who sees great potential in our business (hey, thanks!) and asks for £100k, and a female graduate who has worked in a related business for several years and asks for £20k.

The ones who stand out in a good way are straightforward and factual. They sound like they fit in because they talk about the work in an everyday way. Too many of the cover letters will be full of breathless, gushing, fawning praise for our company. Makes it sound like they're applying for something astronomically out of their league, even when they're not.

The most annoying thing is not the candidates though - everyone is just doing their best, including the spammers - it's the recruitment department. It's frustrating as a manager to get an email from a runner-up asking politely whether there is any news - when the recruitment team were meant to send them a rejection with my detailed feedback two months ago. It's absolutely not right that candidates don't get any sort of response.

AI, meh. The shortlisting tools aren't very good so I just ignore them and do it myself.

@MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack unvarnished feedback is exactly what I need, so thank you! Saves me hours daily from trying to perfect applications for roles I stand no chance for.

Had similar last week.

350 applications. Job based in Scotland.

Whittled down to 12 for initial interviews. Checked location and in office attendance understood understood.

Reduced to 6 for second interviews. Checked location and in office attendance understood, twice for candidate based in Devon. Yes yes, no problem, will move if successful.

Devon candidate successful. Asks if they can be home based. No, job clearly requires on site attendance in Scotland (50% of the week). Can they work from London instead (and get London salary)? No, job clearly requires on site attendance in Scotland (50% of the week). Candidate turns it down.

Add in the people who have AI generated CVs but can barely string a sentence together at interview and actually have zero relevant experience and it’s all an absolutely massive waste of time.

So frustrating.

Well, you could. And they might take it on board. Then again, they might not. You have to question whether a company that treats prospective employees like that is likely to be open to the feedback. I guess it depends on the extent to which you perceive that it was just one bad apple or representative of a wider cultural problem.

If you can be bothered to feed back, it can't do any harm and it might actually help. But ultimately, it's their problem, not yours!